Author
Topic: Woodward's effect (Read 427681 times)

Yeah, he's invented a field (which hasn't been measured before) in order to make propellantless propulsion work. This is the same thing as violating local conservation of momentum. You can't just invent fields because you want them to be true then after-the-fact invent mathematics that obfuscates what you've just done.

« Last Edit: 02/08/2013 02:11 PM by Robotbeat »

Logged

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Yeah, he's invented a field (which hasn't been measured before) in order to make propellantless propulsion work. This is the same thing as violating local conservation of momentum. You can't just invent fields because you want them to be true then after-the-fact invent mathematics that obfuscates what you've just done.

How do you know he had propellantless propulsion in mind right from the start??

It seems quite unlikely by the way, considering the mathematical path from the field to the effect is far from obvious.

I don't see why he couldn't have just been studying Mach's principle and Sciama's formulation of it until he found the effect, and then deduced the possibility of propellentless propulsion.

I don't know the english for that, but it seems to me that you're doing what is called a "procès d'intention" in french.

Edit: and yes, the field was measured. Or more precisely the force that derives from it, since it is actually the inertial force. It's just that we did not considered it as a real force before. One direct consequence of Mach's principle is that this force has to be real, meaning that it derives from a field emanating from actual physical objects, chiefly the stars in the universe.

The mathematical path is non-obvious because it's not a real effect. I'll bet however much money anyone wants to.

Logged

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Certainly looks more credible than "vibrating ferrite ring moved my lego car an inch -> Inertial Control!!1" but I fear it falls to the same category. Kinda wish it would work though. Why don't these ever work outside original developer's lab? Stupid momentum, so conservative.

« If we produce a fluctuating mass in an object, we can, at least in principle, use it to produce a stationary force onthe object, thereby producing a propulsive force thereon without having to expel propellant from the object. Wesimply push on the object whose mass is fluctuating when it is more massive, and pull back when it is less massive.The reaction forces during the two parts of the cycle will not be the same due to the mass fluctuation, so a time-averaged net force will be produced. This may seem to be a violation of momentum conservation. But the Lorentzinvariance of the theory guarantees that no conservation law is broken. Local momentum conservation is preservedby the flux of momentum in the gravity field that is exchanged with the chiefly distant matter in the universe. »

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

I don't even understand why you guys focus on the conservation of momentum that much.

Because it seems to break it, and the established physics isn't happy about that.

If I have understood correctly a mach effect engine should work like this:

1. You vibrate a driver mass back and forth, preferable along axis that runs through your vehicle's center of mass (unless you want torque too).2. EM field fluctuates in said driver mass, in unison with vibration.3. Unestablished magic happens, causing the driver mass be more massive while it's pushed backward, and less massive while pulled forward.4. Net effect is propulsive force accelerating vehicle forward.

The 'average' mass of driver mass stays the same. Nothing is getting permanently less (or more) massive while the engine is on.

The problem is concept seems to break the conservation of momentum, because the vehicle is gaining momentum while designated donor is unknown. I guess the mach field is supposed to explain somehow ("the entire rest of the universe gives because of X").

The problem is concept seems to break the conservation of momentum, because the vehicle is gaining momentum while designated donor is unknown. I guess the mach field is supposed to explain somehow ("the entire rest of the universe gives because of X").

If this down to earth description is faulty please correct!

Yeah, the entire rest of the universe gives it. Are you offended by the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory as well?

It clearly violates local conservation of momentum in any practical, testable sense.

Studying electronics I learned to use imaginary numbers in what is to my way of thinking a "non-obvious" way. I use this knowledge in a very practical manner although I will be the first to admit I cannot explain the theory. Einstein famously said that imagination is more important than knowledge so again I ask you, "define real".

Logged

Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

It clearly violates local conservation of momentum in any practical, testable sense.

Studying electronics I learned to use imaginary numbers in what is to my way of thinking a "non-obvious" way. I use this knowledge in a very practical manner although I will be the first to admit I cannot explain the theory. Einstein famously said that imagination is more important than knowledge so again I ask you, "define real".

You're confusing mathematical terminology with everyday terminology. And besides, observables in a quantum mechanical system have to be real (in the mathematical sense, i.e. it is equal to its complex conjugate) anyway.

There is no effect.

« Last Edit: 02/08/2013 04:58 PM by Robotbeat »

Logged

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Just to be sure: what's your take on Mach's principle? (the idea that inertia results from an interaction with surrounding matter)

The effect is distinct from Mach's hypothesis.

The "Mach Effect" is a misnomer... (Mach didn't come up with it, Woodward did.) It's the Woodward Effect, and it's conjecture.

Logged

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

No, I'm not. The Mach principle is a somewhat philosophical question that fits entirely within our laws of physics and seeks to gain better perspective on them, while the Woodward Effect (which, sneakily, is sometimes called the Mach Effect) contradicts many laws of physics (or invents sneaky ways to get around it, inventing new physical mechanisms out of practically whole cloth in order to hope it's possible).

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0